The fragility of car computers revealed.
in [UK Drivers]
|
From: Tony Dragon on 28 May 2010 04:21 Doug wrote: > On 27 May, 18:09, Tony Dragon <tony.dra...(a)btinternet.com> wrote: >> Doug wrote: >>> On 27 May, 17:31, Phil W Lee <phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk> wrote: >>>> ChelseaTractorMan <mr.c.trac...(a)hotmail.co.uk> considered Thu, 27 May >>>> 2010 12:21:01 +0100 the perfect time to write: >>>>> On Thu, 27 May 2010 10:12:51 +0100, "GT" <a...(a)b.c> wrote: >>>>>> The word accident implies an accidental incident - no one is to blame - a >>>>>> mistake or unforeseen event. >>>>> No, blame is apportioned for accidents, just look at an accident claim >>>>> form "who in your opinion was to blame?". >>>>> "Accident" tells us it was *unintentional*. >>>>> You are still held responsible for unintentional errors like killing a >>>>> pedestrian. Especially where the error involved recklessness, say >>>>> driving at 60 on a 30. If you were acting within the law and being >>>>> observant when the accident happened it will less likely you are >>>>> penalised. >>>>> Manslaughter is killing somebody >>>>> Murder is premeditated manslaughter >>>> "Accident" also carries the implication (even if not the strict >>>> definition) of unavoidability, which is why it is deprecated in road >>>> safety circles. >>>> Most (in fact almost all) traffic collisions are entirely avoidable, >>>> and indeed totally foreseeable, given the behaviour that leads to >>>> them. >>>> Choosing to drive in that manner is no accident. >>> Even deciding to get behind the wheel of a dangerous machine and drive >>> it at speed in pubic places is also no accident and it is done in the >>> full knowledge that thousands of people are killed or seriously inured >>> every year by such machines. >> >> By the same reasoning a cyclist can not have an accident, as he has made >> a decision to use the bike. >> > I agree. A cyclist who kills is no better than a motorist who kills > except that cyclists do it much less often and therefore are much less > of a threat to others. > > So lets finally dispense with the euphemistic word 'accident' shall > we? > > -- > UK Radical Campaigns. > http://www.zing.icom43.net > A driving licence is a licence to kill. > No, because I know what the word means. -- Tony Dragon
From: Marie on 28 May 2010 04:28 On May 28, 8:09 am, bod <bodro...(a)tiscali.co.uk> wrote: > Adrian wrote: > > Doug <jag...(a)riseup.net> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were > > saying: > > >>> All software has glitches, it's how they're handled that's at issue ... > >>> and in cars the computer or system fails safe. > > >> Apparently not, according to Toyota who say their software glitches > >> cause braking problems. > > > Would you like to quantify those "problems"? No? Would you like me to? > > > It was nothing more than a minor calibration issue in the change-over > > point between regenerative braking (ie light braking) and the hydraulic > > braking, and how the ABS interacted with that. Yes, it could result in a > > very short-term actuation of the ABS, leading to the brakes being > > temporarily released. The instinctive reaction to that would, of course, > > be to press the pedal harder. Which would then move the braking away from > > that change-over point, at which point the brakes worked absolutely fine. > > Oh, look. No real problem. Car easily controllable. > > > Grand total of reported injuries? Three in the US. Where, with the > > accelerator recall, several people were proved to have faked injuries or > > incorrectly tried to move the blame from driver error. > > >> Do you have an authoritative source that claims > >> that car computers are 100% fail-safe under all conditions? > > > Do you have an authoritative source that claims that breathing is 100% > > fail-safe under all conditions? No? Better stop doing it, then. > > > > > > > Yip, death is about the only thing that has the '100%'guarantee tag on > it, in this life. Taxes coming in at a close second at about 99%. > > Bod You pay that much tax, get yourself a caravan, a pickup truck & call yourself a travveler. Marie
From: Tony Dragon on 28 May 2010 04:30 Doug wrote: > On 28 May, 07:09, "Brimstone" <brimst...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> "Doug" <jag...(a)riseup.net> wrote in message >> >> news:4d29c880-6376-421b-96f2-9f105c561eec(a)e21g2000vbl.googlegroups.com... >> >>> Self evidently, the hardware that supports the software is susceptible >>> to environmental extremes and as I have pointed out even Toyota have >>> admitted that their software can suffer from glitches. When you also >>> add the possibility of mechanical faults and human error then clearly >>> cars are death machines waiting to strike. >> If that were the case then deaths arising from motoring incidents would be >> on the increase, given the rise in the number of cars on the road, and yet >> such deaths have fallen over the decades. >> >> What's your explanation for that Doug? >> > Simple. Increasing number of safety measures imposed on road users. I > am hoping that at some point those measures will become so restrictive > and frustrating that many motorists will voluntarily start to kick > their car addiction and adapt their lifestyles accordingly. > > -- > World Carfree Network > http://www.worldcarfree.net/ > Help for your car-addicted friends in the U.K. You mean like the computers that run some of these safety measures. -- Tony Dragon
From: bod on 28 May 2010 04:36 Marie wrote: > On May 28, 8:09 am, bod <bodro...(a)tiscali.co.uk> wrote: >> Adrian wrote: >>> Doug <jag...(a)riseup.net> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were >>> saying: >>>>> All software has glitches, it's how they're handled that's at issue .. >>>>> and in cars the computer or system fails safe. >>>> Apparently not, according to Toyota who say their software glitches >>>> cause braking problems. >>> Would you like to quantify those "problems"? No? Would you like me to? >>> It was nothing more than a minor calibration issue in the change-over >>> point between regenerative braking (ie light braking) and the hydraulic >>> braking, and how the ABS interacted with that. Yes, it could result in a >>> very short-term actuation of the ABS, leading to the brakes being >>> temporarily released. The instinctive reaction to that would, of course, >>> be to press the pedal harder. Which would then move the braking away from >>> that change-over point, at which point the brakes worked absolutely fine. >>> Oh, look. No real problem. Car easily controllable. >>> Grand total of reported injuries? Three in the US. Where, with the >>> accelerator recall, several people were proved to have faked injuries or >>> incorrectly tried to move the blame from driver error. >>>> Do you have an authoritative source that claims >>>> that car computers are 100% fail-safe under all conditions? >>> Do you have an authoritative source that claims that breathing is 100% >>> fail-safe under all conditions? No? Better stop doing it, then. >> > >> > >> >> Yip, death is about the only thing that has the '100%'guarantee tag on >> it, in this life. Taxes coming in at a close second at about 99%. >> >> Bod > > You pay that much tax, get yourself a caravan, a pickup truck & call > yourself a travveler. > > Marie > > Good idea, know any good fields I can pull on to? Bod
From: GT on 28 May 2010 06:44
"Doug" <jagmad(a)riseup.net> wrote in message news:ec32bf47-a0a6-4c98-aef0-2f8b4122c2c8(a)40g2000vbr.googlegroups.com... > On 27 May, 17:31, Phil W Lee <phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk> wrote: >> ChelseaTractorMan <mr.c.trac...(a)hotmail.co.uk> considered Thu, 27 May >> 2010 12:21:01 +0100 the perfect time to write: >> >> >On Thu, 27 May 2010 10:12:51 +0100, "GT" <a...(a)b.c> wrote: >> >> >>The word accident implies an accidental incident - no one is to blame - >> >>a >> >>mistake or unforeseen event. >> >> >No, blame is apportioned for accidents, just look at an accident claim >> >form "who in your opinion was to blame?". >> >> >"Accident" tells us it was *unintentional*. >> >> >You are still held responsible for unintentional errors like killing a >> >pedestrian. Especially where the error involved recklessness, say >> >driving at 60 on a 30. If you were acting within the law and being >> >observant when the accident happened it will less likely you are >> >penalised. >> >> >Manslaughter is killing somebody >> >Murder is premeditated manslaughter >> >> "Accident" also carries the implication (even if not the strict >> definition) of unavoidability, which is why it is deprecated in road >> safety circles. >> Most (in fact almost all) traffic collisions are entirely avoidable, >> and indeed totally foreseeable, given the behaviour that leads to >> them. >> Choosing to drive in that manner is no accident. >> > Even deciding to get behind the wheel of a dangerous machine and drive > it at speed in pubic places is also no accident No and anyone who gets behind the wheel of a dangerous machine should not be allowed to drive it in public places at any speed. Cars are not in that category though, so its not really a problem is it! |